“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said.
“To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.’” -->(!!!)<--

Theropod Hollow Bones vs. Bird Evolution?

"..Several characters that typify a theropod: hollow, thin-walled bones are diagnostic of theropod dinosaurs." Well, since Archeopteryx (the earliest known reptilian-like bird) had SOLID bones... seems they're on the wrong evolutionary branch.

'zat so? My comments interspersed below:

"...Archeopteryx is connecting link between reptiles & birds. Reptilian characters of archeopteryx are- teeth in jaw, thecodant dentition, [my note: described as AQUATIC IN NATURE, almost as if its ancestor came from a marine environment] long tail [like most archosaurs], solid bones [my note: typical of bird groups who are grounded and/or swimmers]."
Objective Zoology By S. K. Sharma


Archeopteryx had solid bones? Then its not a theropod dinosaur.

"...The bones of ceratosaurians, like those of all known theropods, are hollow. Known specimens of ceratosaurians show that the group began to exhibit "bird-like" features (more appropriately, birds show ceratosaurian-like ones) early on. The bones of ceratosaurians, like those of all known theropods, are HOLLOW. [...] Birds have taken this step even further, having large air-filled spaces in their bones. Ceratosaurians also had strongly curved S-shaped necks like birds do; this is a trait inherited from a distant archosaurian ancestor." (Source)

ARCHEOPTERYX HAD... SOLID BONES... Theropod dinosaurs have hollow bones.

Will the real ancestor of Archeopteryx, please, stand , up?

Feels like we're all being made to play a sorry rendition of the game show "To Tell The Truth".

The trustworthy people running today's "Science" show.

So many, many contradiction abound

Archeopteryx had SOLID BONES:
"Compsognathus is believed by many scientists to be an early elative of Archaeopteryx, often considered to be the first bird. Supporting this belief is the fact that the bone structure of Compsognathus is quite similar to that of Archaeopteryx, and the two dinosaurs were about the same size. They also lived at the same time in history, which would have made it difficult for Compsognathus to be an ancestor. It is still possible, though, that Compsognathus lived earlier than Archaeopteryx. On the other side of the argument, Compsognathus had hollow bones, like modern birds, but Archaeopteryx had solid bones."

Archeopteryx had HOLLOW BONES:
"Archaeopteryx had a flat breastbone and ribs along the stomach, which are two skeletal features that are found in reptiles. Its flat breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have been supported by its thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone or perhaps attached to its sternum. Its hollow bones and light weight lead scientists to believe it was able to get off the ground fairly easily, however."

No comments:

Interesting Related Links

For the Anti-Creationism Darwinist Among Us

Thales of Miletus

My Other Blog:
Genesis in the Ancient World
"The Jews integrated into Greek culture around 300 BC. Notably, much of the modern Biblical literature is actually Greek. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis. "One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

Namely this *ouch!*

Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World
"...For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."

(Source, ucmp.berkeley.edu History)

[Sadly, what the site fails to mention is that the oldest known biblical manuscripts date no earlier than around 300 B.C., therefore, Anaximander (610-545 B.C.) could not have based any of his concepts on Biblical Hebrew. However it can be deduced, the Hebrew Genesis account was borrowed from mainstream Greek philosophy.] [The analysis by Harvard and several other University sources are quite impressive: (Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy)]